One of my coworkers is expecting a son, and she was talking about her decision to have him circumcised. All of the men in the department, cut and not, were vehemently, legs-crossedly against it. Most of the women--actually all of them except me--were for. It's cleaner, doncha know. Better to do it when he won't remember than maybe have to do it later. Some studies that I can't quite find suggest that maybe it reduces AIDS transmission by 0.01%. It just looks nicer.
I argued a bit about how it's not right to cut off a perfectly harmless and normal part of a person's body, and it makes about as much sense as cutting off a kid's ears just because you think that's normal. ("Hey, he can still hear fine! He won't remember it! Ear-lopping is our tradition! And you won't have to wash his ears!")
But then, because I'm me and I have no discretion, I brought up the one thing neither the pros nor cons had said. "It's, um... it's kind of better with an uncut guy."
Yeah. I know how to kill a conversation dead.
It's easy to talk about your son's cleanliness, or his health, or even his supposed sense of "normalcy." It's likewise easy to counterargue about his bodily autonomy, or his natural state, or the pain of the procedure. But it's somehow taboo to bring pleasure into the conversation. It's pedophilic to consider the pleasure of a baby, incestuous to consider the pleasure of your son, and decadent to consider anyone's pleasure at all ever. It's hard, in almost any context, let alone that of discussing an unborn baby with his mother, to ask "But what about his orgasms?"
Although I certainly believe in, y'know, the whole bodily intactness and autonomy deal, that's just a cover. What I really think about in circumcision debates is the way the foreskin just glides up and down a man's shaft with perfect smoothness, the way it just feels so right in my hand and the way it slides in my pussy. I can certainly have fun with a circumcised penis, it's not a dealbreaker or anything, but all else being equal--I'd never want an uncut guy to get cut, I'll tell you that.
The debate was just for fun, of course; my coworker had already made up her mind to have her infant son strapped down and his penis clamped and an incredibly sensitive and irreplaceable part of his body amputated with no or minimal anesthesia. (She's Jewish, doncha know. She eats pork and works on Saturdays, but when it comes to genital mutilation, that's where she makes her stand.) All I can do is make up my mind that when I make decisions in life, I won't discount pleasure. It's not the only factor--I use condoms even though I think they reduce pleasure--but it matters. Embarrassment or propriety shouldn't make us leave pleasure out of our cost-benefit questions.
Figleaf has a post up on a study that purports to show that lube can actually increase disease transmission in anal sex. The reporting on the study is probably more "SCIENCE SAYS" than actual science, but even if it did prove that lubeless buttsex is marginally safer--it still wouldn't be worth it. Having no buttsex at all is safest, after all; no one needs to have buttsex. To say that the pleasure and comfort of lube don't count for anything compared to small-percentage risk reductions is Just Not Getting It.
Although, if you do have buttsex without lube, it'll probably work better if the top is uncircumcised.
When I was pregnant for the first time, my husband and I debated back and forth about circumcision. He was for it. I was VERY strongly against it. Then we were told we were having 2 girls so the debate ended, until our boy/girl twins were born. when the NICU called to my room 9they were preemies) and asked about circumcision, thank God my husband didn't make me debate it while heavily drugged, and he just told them "No".
ReplyDeleteIt makes me incredibly sad that we consider "normal" to be cutting off a piece of a person's anatomy rather than leaving them with what they were born with. The whole "It's just yucky" arguement doesn't fly with me. How can a normal part of the anatomy be "yucky". If we're cutting off all the "yucky" parts, how 'bout testicles? I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the little guys but, they're not the most attractive thing ever to grace the human body.
What it comes down to for me is, it's not my body. I have no right to make decision for someone else. Maybe my son will wish he had been circumcised and will want to do it when he's older. It's well within his right to decide that after he turns 18 and gets to try out the equipment a bit. But, it's not for me to choose. I wouldn't genitally mutilate my daughter so why would I choose to do it to my son?
Then you have the "so he'll look like his father" bullshit. If his father was missing an arm, would you cut off his arm at birth? My son and my husband have different colored eyes, and different colored hair. Should my son wear contacts and dye his hair? Of course not. So, why should I cut off an important part of his penis just so it will look like my husband's?
"I did it so the kids in gym class won't make fun of him". Guess what, kids are cruel. if they want to make fun of him they will, wether he's circumcised or not. And, by the time my son gets to the point in school where boys might notice other boy's penis in the locker room about 50% of boys will be intact. Kids make fun of each other for every little difference. I cannot understand putting a tiny baby through a routine circumcision just to avoid teasing in a gym locker room.
Really, I just don't understand how a mother (or father) can agree to have a procedure done on their baby that is going to hurt when it's done, continue to hurt while it heals, for no real benefit. How do you look at your tiny baby and say to the doctor "Please strap him down, give him no anelgesia and take a scalpel to the most sensitive part of his body".
I've heard people argue that it's obviously not that bad because the babies don't cry that much and settle down and go to sleep right after. No shit, Jerkface. It's called shock. It's a defense mechanism. It's not contentment.
Alright, I need to stop before I get even more annoyed. Ever since my son was born and I started researching before making a decision, it's a real hot button issue with me.
GOOD FOR YOU for standing up for innocent babies and perhaps planting the seed in these people's minds that, hey, we don't HAVE to hack up newborn babies. These baby boys don't have a voice to speak for themselves so we need to loudly proclaim that circumcision is an unnecessary cosmetic surgery for newborns.
ReplyDeleteAs the mother of two girls I haven't had to make this decision for my children. I could go on and on about my opinion but I'll shorten my comment to say: ditto to everything June Cleaver said in her comment. This issue really gets me riled up. Kudos to you for thinking about circumcision logically and for presenting the idea to others that an intact penis is not weird, it's normal.
There's a theory out there that uncut gives a gliding motion, while cut is more like a piston. Which means that sex with a cut guy, all other things being equal, can hurt a lot more.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that if I had been intact I might still have been married to my first wife. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate :-)
I was cut fairly late in life, one of those "infection? Cut it off, he doesn't need it" things. If a finger had been infected, they would have done their best to save it.
Horrible website design, but valuable info: http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html
ReplyDeleteThere are even men who "grow" the foreskin back to get the lubrication and protection of their penises back.
As a european, I only ever have sex with uncircumcised guys, so I can't compare. But I never heard anyone complain about hygiene or infections...
The hair on my head isn't hygienic either, it's expensive to care for, can catch lice and can be annoying. Would any woman in western countries ever get the idea to cut it off for these reasons? Even though it can grow back???
I'm from Eastern Europe, and when I was in kindergarten, all the other girls had earrings - their ears were pierced in the first few days of their life, without their consent (because if a passer-by couldn't decide if a baby is a boy or a girl, this would mean the end of civilization as we know it!). And the earrings themselves were ugly, with 2 or 3 models at most.
ReplyDeleteMy parents didn't want to do this to me, so I grew up with my skin intact - I could have modified it later, but I decided not to.
So a few kids from kindergarten did bully me with it ("you're not a real girl, look at your ears"), but they would have found a reason or other... and I really like this feeling of integriy and being respected by my parents.
Even in things unrelated to pleasure, keeping a healthy baby far from sharp metal objects is ... just the right thing to do.
(ps: of course, if religious reasons enter the picture, it gets more complicated)
I did the stretchy thing for a while, gained no foreskin to speak of, but did gain an inch... or I think that's where I gained the inch...
ReplyDeleteThe debate was just for fun, of course; my coworker had already made up her mind to have her infant son strapped down and his penis clamped and an incredibly sensitive and irreplaceable part of his body amputated with no or minimal anesthesia. (She's Jewish, doncha know. She eats pork and works on Saturdays, but when it comes to genital mutilation, that's where she makes her stand.)
ReplyDeleteI see reading Tam has rubbed off on you. That's some weapons-grade snark right there. :)
I'm cut, I'm happy with my cock the way it is, and I'm never having any kids of my own, so it's sort of moot for me. But I do find it interesting to note in my own mind how male circumcision seems, if not exactly kind, at least somewhat normal, while the stories I hear of "female circumcision" fill me with horror and rage.
Which I presume is a lot like what those commenters upthread feel when they think of male circumcision.
You find it interesting? I find it sexist denial. The very fact you experience that difference in perception might show you the damage done - your self-esteem as a man is so low you shrug off the fact you were genitally mutilated. The thought of someone doing that to a girl however, feels you with "horror and rage"?
DeleteOH NO THE POOR MENZ
DeleteNo, seriously, I think that circumcision is wrong, but if a guy's comfortable with his body in the end, he's comfortable with it. It might not be because he's being oppressed by spermjack friendzoner alimony.
My wife's culturally-Jewish-but-not-religious. I'm circumcised, and have never missed having a foreskin, and I find people who are all resentful about being circumcised to be slightly ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSo when she was pregnant, we had the conversation about circumcision, and it went something like this:
Wife: "I guess, if it's a boy, and if it's important to you that he looks like you, we can circumcise."
Self: "Huh? Who cares if he looks like me? My dad's dick doesn't look like mine, and I seem to have turned out okay. But, I mean, it's not that big a deal to me--if you think it's be important for his feeling of cultural Jewish identity, then I'm okay with circumcision. But that's the only reason."
Wife: "...why would I want him to identify with the most barbaric aspect of Judaism?"
So, yeah, we didn't do that.
Of the two of us, she was much more against it than I was. I came around to her way of thinking after he was born and it ceased to be a hypothetical Schrödinger's-cat sort of penis but an actual real penis connected to a baby I loved, though.
I actually didn't circumcize my son as an infant, 20+ years ago, because I worked on pediatrics and had seen a horrible case---the baby's blood disorder hadn't been discovered until after circumcision and the infant eventually lost his penis due to infection/failure to clot. At that point, I decided my son could keep his foreskin.
ReplyDeleteA very wise pediatrician---I am one of many girls, had never ever seen an uncut male!--told me "don't worry about that. It will retract about a week after he finds it. You can clean it then."
I think he had one infection, brought on by sand and too much infantile enthusiasm for his anatomy......
I've never slept with a guy who was uncircumcised so I can't speak for the sexual enjoyment aspects, but as far as I'm concerned it looks better uncut and there's no reason to go about carving pieces off of healthy children of either gender. It's not like he can't go and get it done himself later in life if that's what he wants.
ReplyDeleteHolly - *shrug* I've heard both pro- and anti- as far as pleasure goes from various people; but that's entirely irrelevant to my agreement with your post, because personal preference is, well, personal rather than universal.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that no consideration of sexual pleasure, as opposed to function, is included in the decision-making process is a product of the reprehensible puritanical nature of our society, and it makes me grumpy. Very grumpy.
I certainly don't regret being circumcised, and any boys I have will most likely be circumcised, but to dismiss the 'pleasure factor', as you put it, would be asinine in any (far future) considerations.
Although I do think the use of the term 'genital mutilation' is rather overstating it. Now, female circumcision, -that- is genital mutilation; applying those words to the case of male circumcision just seems to me to lose the meaning of the words as compared to one of the most reprehensible practices I've ever heard of.
~Aaron
Aaron - I'm not sure how you can say all that and then just blithely say "oh yeah, very good points, pleasure really does matter... but of course any sons I have are going to have part of their penises lopped off anyway, just cause that's what ya do, right?"
ReplyDeleteI know it's jerkish of me, but I hate applying wishy-washy "well, it's all personal preference, it's just a matter of opinion" logic to whether to cut up a baby's healthy genitals.
As for "genital mutilation," I think that's just stating it. Female genital mutilation is generally worse, yes, but they're both forms of mutilation.
The difference between female and male genital mutilation is one such to make the concept of comparison absurd in my eyes. From every perspective - pain, medical risk, intent, effect on the person's sex life, cultural connotations - it is, to me, like comparing piercing your child's earlobe and cutting your child's ears off.
ReplyDeleteThen again, it's an argument I've gotten into a number of times, and I certainly don't expect to change anyone else's mind on the internet. *slight shrug* Doesn't stop me from objecting to what I see as a false equivalence.
As to the rest, I agree with you that pleasure is a valid thing to consider. I don't necessarily agree that uncut is better than cut, or cut better than uncut, in whatever respect (anecdotal evidence abounds on both sides, as do studies, none of which (that I've seen) is conclusive).
And more to the point, it's first of all not something I've put a lot of thought into (I'm not planning on having kids for years, if ever) and even then, it won't be solely my decision, because if I have children, it will be with a wife, who will have just as much say as I do.
~Aaron
Obviously I'm a chick so I can't know any of this stuff from a first-person perspective, but from my vantage point, intact penises sure as hell seem more sensitive. The uncut guys I've been with have always been much more vocal when I was touching them than cut guys were (their orgasm-noises had no appreciable difference but the pleasure of being touched and played with seemed distinctly different).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the head of the penis is a mucus membrane that's meant to be MOIST. On a circumcised dude, the head isn't protected so it rubs against the guy's underwear and/or gets exposed to air all the time. So, it dries up and it keratinizes (basically gets covered in a layer of callus). I don't see how a glans covered in toughened protective dried-up skin could possibly be as receptive to sensation as one that's moist, protected, and only gets touched on special occasions.
Hell, if I stick my tongue out until it gets dried up and then touch it, I can't feel my fingertip properly...and that's after just a few minutes.
I don't know why so many people get wigged out at the idea of supporting their children's pleasure. Maybe it's the pedophile thing...they simply don't want to connect sexual pleasure and babies in the same thought. All I know is that if I had kids (which I don't and won't...) I'd want them to be able to come so hard they damn near black out. I would hope that this wouldn't happen until an appropriate age and under optimal circumstances, but yeah.
Aaron - - it is, to me, like comparing piercing your child's earlobe and cutting your child's ears off.
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's like cutting your child's ears off, versus just cutting off their earlobes. The latter may be *preferable*, but "neither" seems like an exemplary choice to me.
Well, I've been cut, and I'm happy with it. I'm also a pathologist, and of the penile cancers I have grossed in, all were on the uncircumcised--and never on a circumcised one.
ReplyDeleteYeah, yeah, yeah, anecdotes, vs. data, yadda yadda yadda--there were only 5, and penises can be reconstructed.
Knowing what I know, and living my life as a cut man--I'm thankful I was circumcised, and would have my child circumcised.
If the biggest problem you have to worry about in life is what your circumcision did to you, on the whole, you're life is blessed and good.
"I'm from Eastern Europe, and when I was in kindergarten, all the other girls had earrings - their ears were pierced in the first few days of their life, without their consent (because if a passer-by couldn't decide if a baby is a boy or a girl, this would mean the end of civilization as we know it!). And the earrings themselves were ugly, with 2 or 3 models at most."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you bring this up because ear piercing was also debated when I was pregnant (I posted on a pregnancy message baord). Some women were planning to have it done by the pediatrician when the baby was only a few days old and I found it repulsive. First of all, they're little girls. They're perfect and beautiful the way they are. Why do some parents feel the need to decorate them already? And second, it's not my body to be poking holes in. I now have 2 daughters and they are exactly the way they were born. If they decide they want pierced ears they can make that choice later and I will even take them somewhere safe to get it done. But, my rule is, they have to be old enough to 1) understand that it's going to hurt and how much it will hurt and 2) be able to take care of the piercings (mostly) on their own. I want them to be old enough to think about it before they poke holes in themselves.
I have no probelm with people deciding they want to alter their bodies. I'm tattooed and pierced and have large gauge plugs in my ears. My mom took me to get my ears pierced for the first time when I was, oh, about 3. I clearly remember being terrified, it hurting a lot, and sitting in the chair screaming while it was done and afterwards. No way I could do that to my daughter.
"(ps: of course, if religious reasons enter the picture, it gets more complicated) "
It doesn't get more complicated for me. I am pretty tolerant of other people's religious views or lifestyle choices as long as they don't affect someone else. Routine circumcision is the same, in my eyes, whether done for aesthetic reasons or religious. Is it ok for a Muslim to circumcise his daughter in the name of religion? Hell no (and yes, I know only a small percentage of Muslims practice female circumcision). A Jewish doctor I used to work with and I got into a discussion about routine infant circumcision (RIC) when her sister was pregnant with a baby boy and the sister wasn't too thrilled with the idea of RIC. I asked if she could choose to not have it done and the doctor pointed out that it's not like they ask men to whip it out before entering a synagogue. Being intact does not preclude someone from being Jewish.
"Although I do think the use of the term 'genital mutilation' is rather overstating it. Now, female circumcision, -that- is genital mutilation; applying those words to the case of male circumcision just seems to me to lose the meaning of the words as compared to one of the most reprehensible practices I've ever heard of."
Have you seen a baby boy being circumcised? It's horrid. Do you realize how much tissue is actually removed? Take out a 3X5 card. For the average man, that is the size of the piece of the penis that was removed. It's not some little flap of skin. Hell, that's about the same size as my hand from wrist to fingertips. While male and female circumcision may not be exactly the same, I do still think both are genital mutilation. Someone is taking a perfectly normal and healthy part of a newborn baby and cutting it off. Would you (hypothetical "you") let someone cut off your baby's pinky toe? How about a little finger? I mean, they have 9 more and can function fine without a pinky toe or little finger. I don't imagine anyone would agree to that so why in the world would someone agree to circumcising a healthy foreskin?
Very quick adjustment: the studies suggested that most lubes tested caused more tissue damage (for instance surface cell dessication) and STI transmission than a few other lubes.
ReplyDeleteUsing lube, any lube, is still lower-risk and causes less tissue damage, than using no lube.
---
About circumcision: People can already get all sorts of body mods in piercing and tattoo parlors. I figure if my son ever wants to get circumcised he can save up his own money and get one if he wants one. Who the fuck would I be to make that choice for him?
It would be like choosing their tattoo or tongue piercing for your kids.
figleaf
"About circumcision: People can already get all sorts of body mods in piercing and tattoo parlors. I figure if my son ever wants to get circumcised he can save up his own money and get one if he wants one. Who the fuck would I be to make that choice for him? "
ReplyDeleteExactly my feelings on the subject, which was why I pointed out that I have tattoos, piercings and mods (the plugs). I'm not against someone modifying or decorating their body as long as it's done on their terms. With circumcision, he can always decide later that he wants to be circumcised. He can't go back and decide to be intact.
Something that just struck me as interesting...Jewish people aren't supposed to get tattoos or, in some cases, piercings citing a passage in the old testament about not making "gashes" in the flesh. The principle being that the body is a gift from God and, therefore, as it should be, and we mere humans shouldn't take it unpon ourselves to alter it. So, somehow that means no tattoos or piercings but it's ok to chop off a big hunk of baby penis?
Well, I've been cut, and I'm happy with it. I'm also a pathologist, and of the penile cancers I have grossed in, all were on the uncircumcised--and never on a circumcised one.
ReplyDeleteI bet breast cancer is way more common than penis cancer. OMG LET'S TAKE ALL THE ADOLESCENT GIRLS AND SCOOP OUT ALL THEIR BREAST TISSUE! You know, as a preventive measure. Plus it's super-difficult to clean underneath boobs once they get saggy and really, doesn't a perfectly flat, featureless female torso just look sleeker and nicer?
Yay! I haz good ideas!
Well, as I've been told by a few vet techs (also anecdotal), all the cases of testicular tumours they saw were no non neutered dogs.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what one can conclude from that...
:P
Just to add another anecdote...the uncircumcised man that I dated didn't have that sensitive of a penis. I think it really depends on amount/style of jerking off + psychological factors as to how big a role penis sensitivity is going to play in a guy's life, cut or not. But I still don't think cutting off a foreskin is the right thing to do - it's not like you can predict this stuff...
ReplyDeletehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html
ReplyDeleteThe results show that circumcised men in the study were 63 percent less likely than uncircumcised men to be infected through sex with HIV-positive women.
Besides that study being a whole bucket of what the hell is wrong with people, haven't they heard of condoms in this day and age, I have to wonder what the numbers were at the time they stopped the study? I've yet to see a study stopped for anything but the realization that they'd get a null finding if they proceeded as planned (not like you gonna write that one in the press release, duh).
ReplyDelete(Also, any control on the circumcision recovery time? No one's gonna convince me that a month or so of no sex lest it falls off warning doesn't count.)
I also have to be mean now and ask... PARTS of Europe? Compared to WHAT Magical Fairyamerica European Land (TM) where circumcisions are done routinely?
The results show that circumcised men in the study were 63 percent less likely than uncircumcised men to be infected through sex with HIV-positive women.
ReplyDeleteCutting men's BALLS off would prevent the spread of HIV much, much more effectively than cutting off their foreskins, but I don't see anyone suggesting that...
Also, as Ice said, what about using a freaking condom? The whole "uncut guys get HIV way easier" thing is because the foreskin is delicate and prone to getting teeny little tears that the virus can get into - shield the whole thing behind an impermeable barrier and presto, problem solved.
Strange how we view female circumcision as barbaric. Mainly, I suspect, because it happens in "the bush" (no pun) while male circumcision happens in clean western hospitals. Well, here, male circumcision happens in "the bush" as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/13-initiates-die-in-12-days-20100617
[quote]East London - Two more initiates have died in the Eastern Cape, bringing to 13 the number of circumcision-related deaths in the past 12 days, the provincial health department said on Thursday.[/quote]
If you think setting it in a hospital makes male circumcision less barbaric (and I guess it does) then maybe you should be more tolerant of female circumcision.
Or otherwise, just leave everything the way it comes from the factory...
I was circumcised at birth. I started restoring my foreskin 2 years ago and I can say that there is a big difference between being circumcised and having a foreskin, even if it is restored. I get a lot more sexual pleasure with my restored foreskin than I did before. It is not all about sensitivity, though. The foreskin provides a gliding action that feels fantastic. With my restored foreskin, we do not need to use lube. Also, my wife does not get sore from sex like she used to. Now, she enjoys playing. :)
ReplyDeleteexcellent essay, holly. thank you. i am enjoying your blog.
ReplyDeleteas for FGM vs MGM... I am a circumcised female and so i have a right to compare FGM to male circumcision. doctors used to cut off the labia and clitorises of little WASP girls in the USA - in Kansas. Blue Cross Blue Shield covered clitoridectomies until 1977. "I'm glad we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." I wrote my story in "The Rape of Innocence"... I am also a clinical hypnotherapist specializing in the release of trauma. Those are my 'credentials'... so,
Aaron, i am sorry you had to encounter even one case of penile cancer, but the odds of penile cancer are so low that you have to cut 100,000 baby boys to ostensibly prevent one case of penile cancer in one 70-year-old guy with poor eating habits and bad hygiene. Much simpler to teach boys to rinse the thing... it only takes a little clean, clear water.
In short, cut parts of genitalia off and you break a beautiful system. Pleasure is lost. Tissue is thrown in the trash. Neurological circuits are disrupted. PTSD is a 'gift' that keeps giving all the life long.
I will never know what 'natural' is, but as a canary in the mine shaft, I learned one thing - an intact, uncut, natural man works just fine, even in my condition… very pleasant… they are self-lubricating... and the owner knows how to move in a sensuous way. But the cut ones? They tended to hurt. They rubbed me raw inside because they had to move fast & hard to feel anything - since the subtle pleasure sensors are lost when the foreskin is lost. 'Fast & hard' doesn't make me feel pleasure or gratitude, not dearly loved, honored, cherished or respected. But then, that might be due to my 'condition'. ???
The worst part? the psychological damage. a child in the throes of an attack on his/her genitals can conclude that s/he is bad, wrong, a victim, has no protection, is not loved, is unworthy, powerless, helpless, and many other hurtful things.
So since I get a vote, I vote that cutting the healthy genital flesh of infants and children is counter-intuitive, counter-pleasure. Circumcision of anyone, anywhere, anytime, is not medicine, it's cruel voodoo.
Thank goodness for the internet (currently, still practically uncontrolled by the elite and their money-influenced bias) and it's anonymity which enables discussion about topics that would never be discussed in 99.99999% of public circles.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, having a foreskin plus a measure of phimosis is pretty irritating and er "restricting". Still, there are plenty of remedies, thanks to the 'ol internets!
I agree with all you said.
ReplyDeleteI have been with both and I have to admit I am very happy with the intact man I am with. It's like having the best of both worlds. If I want him to be circumcised, I just pull his foreskin back or he straps on a retaining device that holds it back. You don't get that option with someone who has been circumcised. Besides, I have never ever had to use lube and it feels natural when he's inside me. Not to mention all the nasty things he likes me to do when playing with it.
ReplyDelete